Dosanjh, et al v. Litton Loan Servicing, et al.,

Filing 36

ORDER REMANDING CASE to Superior Court for the County of Sacramento, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/22/10. Dft Litton Loan Servicing LP's 25 motion to dismiss is TERMED. Copy of remand order sent.(Kastilahn, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALJIT DOSANJH, SUKHINDER DOSANJH, Plaintiffs, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE, CORP., and DOES 1-50 Inclusive, Defendants. ______________________________/

Case No. 2:09-CV-02535-JAM-DAD ORDER RE:MOTION TO DISMISS AND REMAND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Litton Loan Servicing, LP's,("Defendant's"), Motion to Dismiss, (Doc #25), Plaintiffs Baljit Dosanjh and Sukhinder Dosanjh's ("Plaintiffs'") Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #24) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

12(b)(6).

1

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 2 The Court has taken

Judicial Notice of all documents as requested by Defendant. This case was removed from state court to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' original complaint brought claims for relief for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), along with supplemental state law claims. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, and it no longer contains any federal claims for relief. Federal claims for relief are named in the caption and the opening paragraph of the Complaint, but are not set forth as individual claims for relief in the body of the Complaint. "Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims... In the usual case in which federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims." Keen v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 2010 WL 624306, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, because no

1

27 28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 2 The Court notes that Plaintiffs' opposition appeared to be a boilerplate, cut and paste brief. Counsel failed to even name the correct plaintiffs in the case.
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

federal claims remain in this action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. This case is hereby remanded to the Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2010

____________________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3